Now it finally happened. Not hat I have not talked about the Google problem in the past, but now it is really obvious that they do not follow the FOSS-Desktop development, but rather try to get everybody store as much information on the web (crawled and advertised by them) as possible. Google Chrome OS will be born. It won’t even be based on X, and will use Chrome as the main interface, so it is mainly around client-to-server http/html communications, which require storing all your personal data elsewhere, outside your control. It is a new competitor to all desktop environments, a proprietary and free (as in beer) competitor to FOSS, which is much more dangerous than MS is, since FOSS can always beat MS’ price. It is proprietary because the actual apps+your data are outside of your control handled on their webserver. Has anybody seen the code for GMail yet?
Chrome OS will have the opposite target of what FOSS tries to achieve. FOSS tries to give you total control of your software and therefore by its very meaning control of your data. Google tries to abuse FOSS work for a hidden thin-client layer to their web-apps, because otherwise they would not benefit from you working with your data.
What to do? Well sitting here and complaining won’t stop the “web 2.0″ and its general push of user’s data to www-based servers. This is actually the main problem and imo an enormous waste of ressources, since every well designed gui and interface on the desktop has to be redone in html+js (remember even opengl getting integrated in the browser by google?) and you have to create an enormous storage and ressources on servers. I’ll post a follow up about some thoughts of P2P integration.
Cheers,
whilo
p.s.: I have waited for more than a day to post this, because I’ve thought the most dangerous new competitor to the FOSS desktop might get at least some attention on the planet, but it seems that google is somewhat masked out from critical consciousness. Instead far less important problems, like tomboy being in default debian install or not/is c# evil or not, get discussed everywhere… Instead of avoiding the Google problem in FOSS activism, it is really necessary to face its problems, if people still take the FOSS goals seriously. If FOSS people wouldn’t “bitch” around Google that much, they could actually help to raise the consciousness of the dangers associated to a giant centralized information pool. That is what I have experienced FOSS like when I have started to work with it in the past.
It was not to be mainstream, but to rather question the usage of software and assign certain ethical principles to it, especially in regard to your freedom. Is this all lost?
“What to do?” – decentralize web 2.0′s innovations. We already have Jabber, now we need to bring it to users. They already have Jabber clients, but who hosts a Jabber server? I think NAT really works against us here. IPv6 will help there.
In short, we need to allow users to host their own data reliably, conveniently, and easily; to share it, to access it remotely, even to sell it.
That was clear long ago…
I already said somewhere that moving from personal computers to „thin clients” for Google (or any other centralized) services is a problem even more dangerous than DRM, as the provider of services will have the power to ban you from copying your files, launching unwanted apps, and _they_ will decide which apps you want (see iphone or android), which files to ban, and so on. And do not forget about RFID in your sneakers (see iphone and nike).
Sorry for my poor English.
Yes !
Google become a very serious treat to the freedom.
Google have power to force the Google Os into the market, as they done with Google chrome.
And with all on the internet, the Manufacturers should even ship the Pcs without disk to reduce cost.
When this happen, all the KDE, GNOME, LINUX, WINDOWS, MAC , FREEDOM will become nothing And Google will have unlimited powers !
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW !!
The good thing about google is that it still relies on open standards. Sick of gmail? Import all your mails with IMAP. Sick of google doc? Export your docs with ODT. Gtalk? Jabber. Google Cal? Use ical, kontact etc to export all your calendars. Even Google Wave will be open source.
It sucks that most google apps are not free software, but at least you’re free to leave anytime and take your data with you. Google is very pro portable data. Compare this to microsoft, not quite the same problem…
I can’t agree more with you. Chrome OS might benefit Linux, but won’t benefit (or even hurt) open source in general.
@Patcito
Sure but what you miss imo is that at some point it gets hard to setup the same service without having either enormous ressources (Google search) or the same degree of linked information (social networking/collaboration). The last definetly has to be fixed in FOSS or Google will take FOSS down eventually.
@admin
What do you mean it will “take FOSS down”. That doesn’t make sense. Google wouldn’t exist without FOSS, why do you think they help so many FOSS projects and not only with GSOC. Google Chrome OS will be open source, all the apps will be web apps. Don’t like gmail? Code your own or use zimbra or anything else. I agree that Google Search will be hard to top, but gmail, google doc, google cal etc shouldn’t be ok as they are just apps and don’t rely on linked information too much.
err, I mean “gmail, google doc, google cal etc *should* be ok” =)
Ohhh come one now… this is ridiculous, first people hate Mono, then people hate Google, omg stop this, this is getting far enough.
Face it, the web beats all GUI frameworks any day. I submit my data to Google, the company that does evil things like SoC.
Why does nobody complains about Yahoo, AOL and others?
If you have concerns about Google products, then do the following: don’t use it
While I get what you are saying there are benefits. First, Chrome OS will be based on linux, and the sheer size of google should force other people to make linux compatible versions of their software. As for the data storge etc. I think that we will see remedies to that very quickly. It’s too early to tell. I suspect that google will eventually opensource this OS.
Having said that, I do agree that we should be very careful looking at any of googles new offerings.
[...] This post was Twitted by Ujjwol [...]
I especially disagree with your thought that Google is “abusing” FOSS and Linux in basing its OS on it. Google is “free” to do this if they want, and I will be happy if they can grab any of the Windows market share.
I think Chrome OS can only help Linux, as it will increase awareness that there are alternatives out there. Perhaps Chrome OS will push vendors to better Linux driver support.
Sure, it’s a competitor to KDE. I don’t think that the Chrome OS crowd and the KDE crowd overlap that much, though.
i think it is a single sided argument.
google OS will be (lagely based on) opensource. google contributes.
you say google limits my freedoms, but to me it feels like it extends them. i can get to my gmail from almost every browser in the world. that’s increased freedom to me.
as the freesoftware movement we are usually allowed to interface google services directly. i.e. we do not have to use gmail’s web interface. and yet a user can always fall back to it.
freesoftare, as it is developed in by open-access innovation, has always the advantage of:
- not being there to make profit
- driven by what developers/user (not shareholders) want
- allowing full experimentation
i’d say the freesoftware development process is slow but robust. it is impossible for it to back-slide: it can only go forward.
google is an online service provider that innovates a lot. we are the freesoftware movement. we have nothing to fear from them (and unlike m$ i think they have not to much to fear from us either, thats why we’re friends).
so lets not fear.
_c.
I completely agree with you. Think about it: applications of Google Chrome OS will be mainly web based (they said so), so they will _not_ be installed on your system.
If I was a not-OSS friendly software company willing to develop an application for Google Chrome OS I could pick a GPL project, modify it, put it on MY server (so not distributing it, I’m not obliged to share my modified source code) then make it available as a “web 2.0″ service.
This is a practice which Google itself did with many OSS projects (e.g. Apache), so no surprise. This is also the reason of the born of “Affero GPL”, which Google banned in their “Google Code” website.
In their blog they say that the software installed physically on your PC will be very little (Linux, a not specified windowing system and Google Chrome browser). This will be the only software of which you can (hopefully) see the sources.
I’m not using Google products, and I won’t use it, so please don’t tell me: “if you don’t like Google, don’t use it!”, but please, do not say that Google Chrome OS is a good thing for OSS, because this is clearly false.
I think the most awesome thing is that Google does NOT want to use the X server. Looks like they will come up with something new. That’s awesome and it will certainly push linux ahead. Down with X. Down down down!
@fish – that was one of my main problems. I thought that google OS might push forward graphics drivers but if it doesn’t use X, it might not have quite the same impact on X-land.
The likelyhood that they will create a complete alternative to X that can be adopted by all of X-land seems pretty low. I don’t really understand why they are doind it except to intentionally make it impossible to run non-web software on their web-based os.
I totally agree with you and it is obvious that there are many Google apologetics are in the FLOSS community.
Though Google is very supportive (…to work against Microsoft…) by supporting OSS projects, the main focus is getting data from the users on a closed and centralized infrastructure.
They *are* actively promoting closed web based solutions with Chrome OS. That IS a fact we have to face.
After all I also would say, that the FLOSS community should really think about the *real* implications.
And raising awareness is the first step to make people actually *THINK*.
For now Google is not perceived as evil (like for example Microsoft) but who knows what Google is like in 5-10 year when it will have much more power than Microsoft ever had?
Then it is definitely too late to raise awareness.
And… accessing E-Mails with a browser if needed is actually something I have been doing LONG before GMail launched….
And… why do you think it is “awesome” that Google does not use an X server? You can directly use a (even accelerated) framebuffer with Qt for YEAR now. Nothing special about it actually – just that you can’t use applications that do not build on the same window managing structure….
And… I don’t think Chrome OS will lead to more commercial Linux applications… after Chrome OS will just use a Linux Kernel and not rely on LSB (with it’s missing X server) AND wants 3rd party devs to develop Web Applications on remote servers..
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA512
This thread has definitely turned one sided. It’s Google’s right to do this, but I do see it as a potential threat. Worthless, pointless carbon and energy reductions will occur in the near future, meaning higher prices. Having a “thin-client” system would be convenient and low power, thus potentially sucking the average user in. This isn’t designed to be rolled out onstandard computers, as it wouldn’t make sense to have a closed limited platform on a desktop system, one powerful and versatile enough to do almost everything locally. The kind of systems that this will be sold on may end up being $150-$300 bundle bargain systems that advertise “free online services” with a pre-existing internet connection. Even touted as easy.
We need to fight to keep our applications and data in house with our wallets. This will become an issue of economics. The average American is about to get poorer with this Environment and Security Act. It may become cheaper for people to use online services than to do things locally. There-in lays the trap. Once your digital freedom is out of your hands, it’s gone for good! Don’t ever forget that!
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 – *.:{Hack.I.T Edition r0001}:.*
iJ4EAREKAAYFAkpW700ACgkQ+7Rzy15t3vb9vQH9FggX07EF8ynqw0YLdEv//Fo0
HHNtNPQ0wPRxYtYDJHH108mgE3zEInP5NIb9s46dFCSQvqDoUMozqhOBwIxWnQH9
GXhUO//2eYc6YFHOQALgT3T7p+2UZoYLM9w8svHUJw9jEcHzEAZIoCNmuNxPWKO7
7gKxtdxs9ZecDKWgAV6eOQ==
=ef7Z
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA512
This thread has definitely turned one sided. It’s Google’s right to do this, but I do see it as a potential threat. Worthless, pointless carbon and energy reductions will occur in the near future, meaning higher prices. Having a “thin-client” system would be convenient and low power, thus potentially sucking the average user in. This isn’t designed to be rolled out on standard computers, as it wouldn’t make sense to have a closed limited platform on a desktop system, one powerful and versatile enough to do almost everything locally. The kind of systems that this will be sold on may end up being $150-$300 bundle bargain systems that advertise “free online services” with a pre-existing internet connection. Even touted as easy.
We need to fight to keep our applications and data in house with our wallets. This will become an issue of economics. The average American is about to get poorer with this Environment and Security Act. It may become cheaper for people to use online services than to do things locally. There-in lays the trap. Once your digital freedom is out of your hands, it’s gone for good! Don’t ever forget that!
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 – *.:{Hack.I.T Edition r0001}:.*
iJ4EAREKAAYFAkpW700ACgkQ+7Rzy15t3vb9vQH9FggX07EF8ynqw0YLdEv//Fo0
HHNtNPQ0wPRxYtYDJHH108mgE3zEInP5NIb9s46dFCSQvqDoUMozqhOBwIxWnQH9
GXhUO//2eYc6YFHOQALgT3T7p+2UZoYLM9w8svHUJw9jEcHzEAZIoCNmuNxPWKO7
7gKxtdxs9ZecDKWgAV6eOQ==
=ef7Z
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Mmm… You did think things through in the correct sequence, I’ll give you that. But you have no idea what technologies you’re talking about, right?
I can see your point and I think googles actions and the implications of the google machine for open document standards and software freedom are complex and important. However… lets not go too paranoid – well not for the wrong reasons anyway.
Google’s strategy is clearly aimed at developing an alternative platform that maximises the return on its strength. In releasing chrome it is taking the game up to MS and Apple. The impact on linux desktops is accidental and arises primarily because they are so similar in concept to OSX and windows. That’s not google’s fault.
What google is doing is producing a disruptive technology. It is designed to try and shake things up. They can’t play the same game as MS and Apple so they are trying to change the game. It has a chance of failing. That is their business risk. Pulling it off depends on them delivering a package that people actually want to use (price is part of that). This is just what businesses do. It won’t serve everybodies needs but it gives more diversity and diversity is good because it increases the importance of open standard formats (at least) and reduces the platform barrier.
FOSS may have to accept that in the future its model and mantra many need to change as the focus shifts off software and onto network services. Systems like Chrome and OSX implement service lock-in. You are tied to or best served by Google / Apple network services. This is the issue that the FOSS movement needs to respond to. Perhaps via well designed desktop apps that allow choice of service provider; perhaps by implementing service apps that run on the cloud. Perhaps by better integrating network services into desktop applications. Always making services more usable by leveraging desktop integration strength?
I don’t think Google is evil… yet… but keep watching this space. And act, in code, to maximise service choice.
(no I don’t work for google)
You’re having a laugh right?
Lets get some simple key facts straight first:
1. The Google OS will be open-sourced
2. The Google OS is expected to be some kind of thin-client for the web
OK. So you’ve found that Google OS is getting data by your desktop usage? It’s open source, strip it out! (Someone has already done this with Chromium)
So now you have an offshoot Google OS with no private data, what about Google Apps? You don’t have to use Google Docs, Spreadsheets, Calendar, eMail, etc… I assume the Google Chrome (or the privacy breaches stripped version) will be on here, create your own links to your own app of choice…
Seriously this topic was not worth the effort.
Oh, well, yah, google is evil, mono is evil, the cloud is evil, microsoft is evil, RSM is the salvation of the world and stuff.
I’m being a little tired for all this fud.
ChromeOS WILL be based on X. NeatX is a derivative of X Windows but cleans up some of the problems with it. (I haven’t read about NeatX for a while so don’t recall the details.)
Also, if ChromeOS uses Native Client, Microsoft and Windows is doomed.
I won’t repeat what’s been said so many times before here, but basically I agree that Google is not all nice (even if they say they’re not evil) and that Chrome and Chrome OS are just another step in the direction of taking users’ contents and data on a centralised server.
What I *am* going to add to this discussion is something that I wonder no-one seems to have noticed so far:
WHY on Earth, would someone want to use cloud-only apps on a bloody netbook?!?
Applications in the cloud make sense when you’re without a mobile device and/or need to use many computers in many places (e.g. in cybercafés). The biggest benefit was that if your computer is not portable at least your content and data are.
If now apply the same principles to ultra-portable devices (e.g. netbooks, smartphones), it’s just obsolete. It actually becomes a weight, becuase now you have a very portable device, but if you don’t have internet connection, you have no data, no applications, nothing.
The only place that Chrome OS would make sense is on thin clients in cybercafés themselves. …but then we hit again the age long problem with Google when it comes to privacy, IP law etc etc.
P.S. Incidentially, you might be interested in reading http://thinkmoult.com/2009/07/08/the-google-operating-system-chrome
whilo, I used to find your blog and opinions a little too paranoid, but now I’m little by little changing my mind cause this “in the cloud” mania is just creating a non-distributed Internet. I mean, technically (IP, routing blah blah) will be just the same, but the content now is always in the same “logical” location. You may be using your phone, your netbook or your brand new $GADGET but the data will be always in the same place! (being Google or anyone else). This is not a distributed environment, this is more centralized than ever! And you don’t have the code nor the rights to modify the way you access *your* data.
I found quite bizarre that lots of opensource enthusiasts respond with a “who cares?”.
My 2¢
I agree that moving applications to the web is a danger. I doubt it is coincidence that Google does not allow the Affero GPL in their code hosting system. Their online apps are their actual business, their core interests, not the thin layer having the sole purpose of allowing access to the applications themselves. And these are not open-source, they are even more closed than M$ office. You do not even have the data under your own control. People are accusing M$ of maybe sending data about our systems and what we do to their servers – by using Google’s applications, that is undoubtedly the case. This is not about patching our systems not to depend on Google, because people doing that would most likely not use Google Chrome [OS] anyway. It is about all the other people out there which have to be convinced that the freedom of their data is important, and that FOSS is freedom, while Google system (trying to jump on the FOSS wave) is not.
PS: Speaking about restrictions, why do I need JS AND cookies enabled to post a comment here?!?
@Lucian
In fact the ressources are needed anyway. Webservers take much more energy than a well done P2P network would take, since many clients are online anyway and many people have a small home server running 24/7. Google takes enormous ressources to feed their infrastructure and you are right, the relation between several parties on the internet will in the end disqualify your personal freedom, since you depend on the centralized ressources. I don’t think that this evolution is a natural development though. One has to think and fight for the right (free) alternatives at the right time. (as you say)
@Fred Morcos
? Of Which technologies do I not know what I am talking about?
@diafero
The Affero issue is interesting. It is truely no coincidence.
No idea. It is just a plain WordPress installation with a spam plugin enabled (WP-SpamFree).
@TGM You don’t have to use MS products either. There have always been (commercial) alternatives. But what do you do if you have to use Google web services to cooperate with all your friends/colleages? Set up your own web 2.0 platform *lol*?
It is about FOSS goals and Google’s hijacking of it as e.g. diafero has pointed out as well. If FOSS decides not to act on threats by Google because they are a bit “brainwashed” by Googles sponsoring and think they actually can profit and raise to commercial stardom, why should I support FOSS? I am interested in my freedom for the future, not in Googles.
And since the Affero addition is forbidden, Google clearly takes an unfair exit out of the GPL. (Which was not foreseeable when the GPL was written).
@Matja
To be not evil is in fact a very “common sense” statement for a big company. This doesn’t form strict ethics and is not provable wrong as long as they can interpret it as they like (see Google China).
In fact, given that Google is a multi-billion dollar business like every other, it is more a geeky joke. Poor fools who have ever believed in it only a little bit.
Well Google counts on the fact that soon everybody will be online everywhere, so you can be sure that they have no simple fault in their strategy, like you propose. They have large think-tanks which develop their strategies and they haven’t failed in the past…
@Vide
Well I am definetly not paranoid. I am rather a normal FOSS user + a little bit of a dev sometimes. I am just critically educated.
Therefore I’d like to answer to the conspiracy accusation.
a) Conspiracy theories are not by nature wrong. They are just a very speculative and flatten parts of reality to get to their point. But many people have been accused of conspiracy theories. In the 18th century it was a conspiracy to not believe in God and to fight for democratic and human rights.
b) The accusation is not a disproval of facts, but rather a generic argument which does not help the argumentation (you could claim that I am some kind of terrorist either). One can always disprove wrong conspiracy theories by giving facts and explanations that explain reality better.
c) Why the heck do you think Google is any different than any other trust. Would you as well say: Oh why do you bash Exxon and not BP and Shell? It is stupid to claim that one of these trusts is not only(!) interested in generating profits in every way they can. I find it really interesting that people who have gained very little from Google identify themselves with a company that they really don’t even know.
d) There is maybe no other critical theory, which has been proven and developped that long, than criticism of capitalism. If this is a conspiracy theory, you really have digged yourself in your “common sense” propaganda/ideology.
I am just trying to think about my future freedom and am critical to trusts which try simply invading and integrating the FOSS movement to get cheap labour and sell users freedom anyway.
Google btw has done very well to generate a “geeky” ideology around them. Just ask yourself where all the money for the Google shareholders comes from? Coincidence, because they are not evil? Now you look naive… The shareholders are the same people who invest in/own MS, Yahoo, Exxon, Lockheed…
Just one other little thing for your consideration:
Google Summer Of Code costs about the same as one minute of Super Bowl advertisement air time.
Not to say GSoC is bad, but it’s not that it costs Google a fortune and it brings Google very good reputation. So it is in fact very effective marketing.
The difference you are talking about lies in the F of FOSS. Google is employing OSS (Open Source Software) to get commercial benefits but they are stripping out the Free. They are not interested in people’s freedom (as in speech). They only care about the Open Source part because it saves them money.
What people need to do is try to get the Free back into the OSS world. I don’t really see that happening with KDE at the moment with non-Free webservices being integrated without any consideration by the developers at all.
Perhaps you want to blog about that again. I’m not on featured on the planet.
Google is now a competitor to KDE? Huh?
KDE is not even an OS, and the Chrome OS seems to be just a lean OS to access web apps.
“Google tries to abuse FOSS work for a hidden thin-client layer to their web-apps, because otherwise they would not benefit from you working with your data.”
You know, this pretty much sums up why free software is going nowhere on the desktop. Freetards are fighting the wrong battle: you can’t win on the desktop market, because the desktop is dying. People won’t change from a legacy platform (Windows, Mac OS) to a newer one with less quality end-user software available (and free desktops failed on bringing quality software to the platform, with the “all open, all free” policy).
The only chance of succeeding on the desktop is what Google is doing now, going the opposite way, and giving users lean and secure client systems to access web apps. It’s perfect because you don’t expend money on software that will run only on 1% of the market (where Linux-based desktops fails), and you can monetize on the online services (Linux-based desktops also fails on giving a source of revenue).
But, freetards are against this model of thin clients accessing web apps also. That’s why KDE, Gnome and any of those can’t win on the desktop: it’s created for archaic people like this, not for real users.
“[Chrome OS] is proprietary because the actual apps+your data are outside of your control handled on their webserver.”
No, Gmail is proprietary and closed-source (Though, as Patcito notes, it completely respects standards, so even if you use it, you can always migrate your data out – hardly out of your control). If, however, that isn’t to your liking, you are free to use any mail client on any server in the world. Your argument, however, is analogous to saying that Firefox becomes proprietary every time you log into Gmail.
@matja: You can use Google Gears to enable off-line access to webapps and your data, which makes them just as “portable” as desktop apps.
Also, it is with some faint irony that I note that I stumbled across this post because it was featured on the Google Reader login page.
Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code.
So how exactly is this not an open source project?
“It is a vain and unprofitable thing to conceive either grief or joy for future things which perhaps will never come about.” — One Day At A Time In Al-Anon | or better said “Worry does not prevent sorrow for tomorrow. It robs today of it’s strengths.” Joyce Meyers
—
I’ve only been educated on Google’s OS by reading everyone’s posts in this topic. So excuse any/all ignorance.
That being said.. I wonder why/how this threatens KDE, Gnome or X-etc? Haven’t these always been the “underdogs?” Why would a new idea from a for-profit corporation threaten our future?
I wont pretend to understand the ins and outs of cloud computing. However, what’s to stop any other FOSS from mimicking/improving upon what Google does?
@admin — “But what do you do if you have to use Google web services to cooperate with all your friends/colleages? Set up your own web 2.0 platform *lol*?”
–What would Richard Stallman say to that?
I’ve noticed a pattern: when proprietary software releases a feature rich, “new” technology. Open Source seems to find a way to do it different (*my opinion) / better.
If we find Google scary in anyway, let’s “fight” back. We will always have the edge in that we have freethinking. Freethinking promotes innovation, and innovation is creativity’s hot cousin. Let’s use our imaginations as a tool to build, rather than conjuring up a fear factory.
I have been using various Linux distro’s for only a little over 2 years. I love my KDE, nobody can take it away from me. I am beginning to undergo my first steps into QT development w/ KDE focus in mind. I want to bring something of value to the table. A mover and a shaker. So please, let’s not get lost in hysteria. Help the new and unlearned find a home where we are encouraged to create and develop the future. Not scare us into thinking we’re in the presence of the deceased.
Wait a minute. Chrome will be 100% FOSS, and yet you call it proprietary. How exactly is it proprietary?
@T.J. Brumfield
It will be proprietary, because the actual apps you use and where you handle your data will be the Google apps on their site, on their server, more closed source than MS/… ever was. You can of course change different services, but that does not make them open. And the problem with outsourcing personal information to a central server/infrastructure is, that at a certain point you cannot easily keep out.
Things get integrated and Google services get more and more linked with your data.
@Spencer
> Your argument, however, is analogous to saying that Firefox
> becomes proprietary every time you log into Gmail.
The statement is more:
“GMail does not become Free Software by logging into it via a Free Software browser like Firefox”.
“What I *am* going to add to this discussion is something that I wonder no-one seems to have noticed so far:
WHY on Earth, would someone want to use cloud-only apps on a bloody netbook?!?”
Well, one reason could be cost. A minimal OS based on web doesn’t have the requiremenet of a 160 Gb HD like the MS OS on netbooks has, so that can drive the hardware costs down.
Perhaps more importantly, think of mobile phone subsidized pricing common in many countries. Another thing which could be used to drive down the cost could be Google subsidy of the hardware, covered by google’s income from advertising and data gathering.
There’s a worrying development trend with all the “convergence” appliances – most of the appliances are closed systems with no practical way for the user to change the software. The world of user-programmable, user-controlled computing may be fading away, and tomorrow’s computing could be like the closed appliances like televisions, mobile phones, photo frames, iPhones, game consoles etc. we have today.
Already, there are lots of appliances (televisions, set top boxes, navigators, phones, photo frames, game consoles etc.) which are based on Linux and other free software, but the devices are for practical purposes (from the user’s point of view) closed systems. By closed I mean the user can’t modify and reinstall a modified version of the device’s software and retain the original functionality (at least not without breaking a contract and/or voiding the warranty), and thus is at the mercy of the of the device manufacturer for updates and bug fixes to the software.
The FAQ has this: “Is Google Chrome OS free?” “Yes – Google Chrome OS is an open source project and will be available to use at no cost.” (http://chrome.blogspot.com/2009/07/google-chrome-os-faq.html).
I don’t know if this is an alarmist worst-case scenario or something which is really going to happen, but with FAQ talk like this (and the talk of only web apps, and cooperation with major hardware manufacturers) combined with Google’s clout does lead me to think that Google Chrome OS could lead to “closed client, closed server” architecture becoming very common.
Control of both the user’s software as well as user’s data could be moving away from the user to where the user can not easily see neither what is done with the data nor what software runs on the readily-sold “net appliance” hardware.
Interesting question:
Say I have a software project. I pour enough resources into it that it becomes the most commonly used software in it’s field. I release it under some FOSS license like GPL… but ultimately I only accept patches into the code base that benefit my commercial strategy. Say that strategy makes me enough money to pour into development, marketing and distribution that anyone forking the code would have a hard time competing (no people don’t just use software because it has the ‘best’ code). I can choose patches that make the software only work at its best with profit making, locked off, external “services”.
Is this project FOSS? The code is readily available, but at the same time I can cherry pick free contributions and simultaneously crush my competition with brutal business tactics while talking about how “open” our project is.
Welcome to the Chrome new world, my friends. This is why open governance is as important as open source.
@Z Why not come to metagov development list. I am currently joining forces with Mike from Votorola to develop an open network architecture (it works already amazingly well, currently the GWT/Ajax client is in the making). If you are interested in open governance, I think if we can manage real world economical workflows in that area, we will have a truely open environment and a unlimited potential to free things up.
GMail does NOT follow standards. it uses modified versions that sometimes courses headaches. Like:
* Labels – labels are not folders, nor tags. Try to label same email with 3 tags – you will get THREE copies of the same email in your IMAP box, one in each label representing folder.
Its hard to use subfolders on IMAP too – each subfolder wil became a new label i gmail. Think of following scenario:
You have a your customers organized like one folder per customer, grouped into sub-folders like Offers/Deals/Requests/Support.
Having just 50 customers means flat list of *200* labels in GMail.
Calendar, Contacts? hmm, so why there is GData APIS that works OK, and open standards, that frequently gets broken from google side?
@Lukas: What really pisses me off with GMail, besides the facts that is binds you to Google and is not free software, is the fact that I even get locked in when I want to mail with some GMail-buddy. They get all my connection data even if I don’t want to communicate with Google.